When we speak to clients or train other investigators, one of the questions that often arises is how do you deal with investigations into behaviours which cause a psychosocial risk, without making that risk worse through the investigation process itself?
It’s clear that when a serious allegation of bullying, sexual harassment, or discrimination lands on your desk, the proper response is to investigate, in particular where, if the allegations made are substantiated, you are looking at taking disciplinary action or terminating the employment of one or more employees.
Behaviours such as bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination are major psychosocial hazards, but they are also potentially serious breaches of the law and/or employer policy.
A workplace investigation is not an ICAM safety incident report. It doesn’t just identify systemic breakdowns and recommend preventative controls. An investigation into workplace behaviour is a formal fact-finding process. It determines fault, establishes whether policy or law has been breached, and carries career-altering consequences, including termination.
But there is a parallel risk that often goes unmanaged in investigating these hazards and that is the workplace investigation itself can become a psychosocial hazard.
Because the stakes are high, the investigation itself puts participants, and the investigator themselves under psychological strain. Understanding where those hazards occur, and how to mitigate them without compromising procedural fairness, is essential for any Workplace Investigator. 
Where the Investigation Triggers Psychosocial Hazards
In any workplace investigation, there are a number of predictable stress points that arise for both complainants and respondents:
- Reporting : Complainants are often very hesitant to come forward. They may be concerned about repercussions to their career or retaliation from the Respondent. For these reasons, complainants will often want to keep their complaint anonymous, which is often not possible if the matters are to be formally investigated.
- The Notification Gap & Suspension: Another psychosocial hazard occurs when respondent is notified that a complaint has been made against them, but they aren’t given the specific details yet. When this is paired with being stood down on pay and told not to contact colleagues, the combination of extreme uncertainty and sudden isolation can create acute psychological distress.
- Responding to Contradictory Evidence: Later in the process, the investigator must put credible, relevant, and significant adverse evidence to the participants for a response. At this stage, participants are usually extremely tired of the investigation and just want it to be over. Being confronted solely with evidence that contradicts their version of events is inherently confronting and stressful.
- The Delivery of Outcomes: The final stage brings significant apprehension and emotional load for both the complainant and the respondent as they await findings that will directly impact their lives.
- Investigator Risk: It isn’t just participants who absorb this risk. Internal HR managers and investigators operating in environments of intense, sustained conflict under tight deadlines face severe job demands and risk psychological stress in conducting the investigation.
How Do We Mitigate the Psychosocial Risk inherent in a Workplace Investigation?
Trauma Informed Process
Trauma Informed investigations have been around as a concept for a while now, but it’s never been more important to conduct a workplace investigation according to the principles of Safety, Trust and Agency and with a focus on respect for the people at the centre of an investigation.
Transparency and Building Trust
The steps in an investigation should be clearly communicated to all of the parties. It’s easy to forget, when you do investigations for a living, that most people have no idea what is involved. The majority of complainants, for example, are shocked when they find that their complaint needs to be communicated to the respondent in enough detail to enable them to respond to the case against them. It is an Investigator’s role to educate and communicate with participants about the investigation process. Good practice looks like well set out communication paths, with verbal and written communication, fact sheets and the ability to answer questions.
Safety
Safety is a key element of a Trauma Informed Process. One thing that is important to remember is that Safety assessments need to be ongoing, it is not just a static ‘tick a box’ exercise at the start of an investigation but one that can and does change over time Safety concerns should be taken seriously and reasonable accommodations can be made to address these.
Agency
Providing choice in relation to process such as choice of interview times, when they would prefer to receive communications from the investigator, where they want to start their interview goes some way to creating an atmosphere of trust in the process.
Investigators should be particularly careful when asking questions about sensitive issue not to re-traumatise the participants.
Procedural Fairness vs. Trauma-Informed Process
There is a common misconception that prioritizing psychological safety weakens procedural fairness. In practice, the opposite is true.
Procedural fairness requires that a process be objective, transparent, and fair to all parties, that the respondent is given a reasonable opportunity to respond and that the Investigator makes reasonable enquiries and makes their mind up on the evidence. Trauma-informed, person-centred practices—such as clear communication, reducing unnecessary delays, offering choices around interview environments, and providing proper support do not get in the way of Procedural Fairness – they enable it.
When participants feel safe, informed, and respected, they are better equipped to engage rationally with the process, give clearer accountings of events, and process difficult evidence fairly. Investigators are better able to assess the evidence of both parties and to gather better information with which to make decisions on the facts of the investigation.
A trauma informed process that educates and builds trust also means that the stress on the Investigator is lessened as everyone knows what to expect, and there is less conflict and challenge over process.
Managing the Process to Prevent the Hazard
An investigation should resolve harm, not create it. Ensuring your team understands how to navigate complex inquiries while maintaining psychological safety and strict procedural fairness is essential for risk management.
At Worklogic, we deliver specialised training programs in conducting effective, trauma-informed workplace investigations. Whether you are looking to upskill your internal teams to conduct sound inquiries or want to audit your existing investigation protocols to manage psychosocial risk, we can support you.
Get in touch with the Worklogic team today to explore our workplace investigation training programs and ensure your processes protect both your people and your organization.