Every employer hopes they never need to run a workplace investigation. But the truth is, how you handle the one you can’t avoid says more about your company than almost anything else you do. Employees are watching: not just the person who filed the complaint and the person accused, but everyone else, quietly deciding whether this is a place where doing the right thing actually matters.
I’ve spent twenty years on the other side of this moment: building and running a global investigations function, sitting across the table from companies that got it right and companies that got it catastrophically wrong. The difference rarely comes down to the underlying facts. It comes down to process. Here’s where I see companies lose the thread most often.
Six ways it goes wrong
They wait too long to start.
Every day a complaint sits untouched is a day evidence fades, rumors fill the silence, and the person who came forward starts to wonder if they made a mistake by speaking up.
They let someone too close to it run the investigation.
Even a well-intentioned HR generalist who reports to the accused, or who’s simply worked alongside them for years, carries a credibility problem that no amount of good faith can erase. The moment either party can reasonably say “of course they sided with him,” the investigation’s value is compromised, regardless of what it finds. California puts this in writing: the FEHA regulations require a complaint process that provides an impartial investigation by qualified personnel (2 CCR § 11023(b)). Those two words carry a great deal of weight.
They ask leading questions.
An interview that starts with “so tell me what happened when he yelled at you” has already written the conclusion before the witness opens their mouth. Good investigative interviewing is slower, more open-ended, and far less intuitive than it looks.
They reach a conclusion before the interviews are finished.
Confirmation bias is quiet and easy to miss from the inside: you form a theory on day one and unconsciously spend the rest of the process building the case for it instead of testing it.
They document the wrong things, or nothing at all.
Either extreme creates a problem: no record leaves you unable to defend the outcome later, and a record padded with editorializing and speculation leaves you defending your own investigator.
They never close the loop.
The complainant and the accused both deserve to know it’s over and, in general terms, what happened next. Silence reads as indifference, even when the investigation itself was handled well.
None of these mistakes come from bad people. They come from asking someone who already has a full-time job, a relationship with everyone involved, and no formal investigative training to do something genuinely specialized, under pressure, with the company’s exposure riding on the outcome. That’s not a fair position to put your HR team in, and it’s exactly the gap an outside investigator is built to close: neutral, trained, credentialed, with no relationship to protect and no other job competing for their attention.
If you’re staring at a complaint right now and not sure where to start, that’s the conversation worth having before you take the next step, not after.
Need an independent investigation?
Explore investigations
