Workplace investigators are sometimes asked to make recommendations after their investigations are complete. While there are significant advantages to adding recommendations to an investigator’s mandate, there are also important considerations to think about. This blog will examine those considerations and conclude with a discussion of when recommendations are appropriate.
The main advantage to having an investigator make recommendations lies in their knowledge of the issues and conflict. By the end of the investigation, the investigator has reviewed the company’s structure and policies and interviewed key employees throughout the organization. The investigator has also likely obtained documentary evidence, including emails, text messages, and other forms of communication. Thus, the investigator has a comprehensive view of the conflict, dynamics, and relationships. They are also better positioned to make recommendations based on their understanding of issues that may not be readily apparent to others in the organization.
Another important advantage lies in the investigator’s experience addressing workplace conflict. Investigators develop expertise in issue-spotting through investigating a variety of workplace issues. While no two disputes are the same, there are similar patterns and dynamics that emerge. Common issues include communication, management style, and role clarity. An investigator’s ability to determine the source of the conflict allows them to craft better recommendations that target the real issues. Similarly, the investigator’s experience allows them to select better solution(s), based on:
The investigator’s recommendations may include respect or sensitivity training, updating workplace policies, or suggesting that certain workplace procedures be altered.
An investigator’s knowledge and experience are important considerations when determining whether to add recommendations to their mandate. But they aren’t the only considerations.
One of the main disadvantages to consider when asking an external investigator to make recommendations is that their understanding of the organization is narrow. They do not work for the organization and can never have complete knowledge of how it operates or its structure. Investigators are also not privy to how business decisions are made. Those uncertainties may impact the feasibility of an investigator’s recommendations or the likelihood that the recommendations will be adopted.
Another reality is that there may be times when there is no recommendation that can resolve an issue or restore a workplace. This may be the case in situations involving particularly serious misconduct or instances when an employee’s physical or mental safety could be jeopardized. It is important to remember that investigators are neutral, meaning they cannot recommend that an employee be disciplined or terminated from employment. In these cases, it may be more appropriate for an investigator to explain to the organization that the working relationship should not continue in its current form and why.
Thus, the limits on an investigator’s ability to make effective recommendations also needs to be considered.
An investigator’s effectiveness at making recommendations is an important consideration. An equally important consideration is whether the investigator should be offering recommendations in the first place. Investigators should only make recommendations if the organization has requested that they do so in the investigation mandate. This means that organizations that expect recommendations at the end of an investigation need to be explicit in communicating that expectation. It also means that investigators should not be offering recommendations simply because they feel a certain way about the matter they are investigating if there has been no request to do so.
