Five questions every organization should ask before conducting a workplace investigation

Every organization encounters workplace issues. To manage the resulting risk and resolve concerns effectively, organizations need to know when a workplace investigation is necessary and how it should be executed in a way that is measured, defensible, and proportionate.

In a recent fireside discussion, Kate McNeill-Keller, Trevor Lawson, Shane D'Souza, Patrick Pengelly, and Kevin Lo, explored how organizations can approach workplace investigations strategically, efficiently, and defensibly by asking five key questions:

Is an investigation required?

Not every issue calls for the same response. Routine workplace complaints may be better addressed through coaching, mentoring, or other management tools. More serious allegations, or issues that trigger legal obligations, may require a formal investigation. The key is to decide whether a formal process is needed or whether the matter can be handled appropriately through informal channels.

A useful starting point is to ask four practical questions:

• What is the problem?

If the issue raises legal or reputational risk, a formal investigation may be warranted.

• What are the stakes?

If failing to address the issue could materially affect the organization, a formal investigation may be warranted.

• What legal requirements apply?

Some issues require a formal investigation, while others do not.

• What response is required, reasonable, and proportionate?

Organizations should avoid over-investigating minor issues while making sure significant matters receive the attention they deserve.

Who should investigate this issue?

If a formal investigation is appropriate, the next question is who should conduct it. An employer must decide whether to investigate internally or retain an external investigator. That choice should be guided by the seriousness of the allegations, the sensitivity of the situation, and the need for independence.

For example, an investigation may involve allegations against a member of senior leadership. In that situation, an internal process may lead stakeholders to question the investigation's neutrality. An external investigator may therefore be the better choice.

Organizations should also consider whether the matter requires specialized expertise, such as experience with trauma-informed practices, regulatory issues, or technical subject matter. Where that expertise is needed, an external investigator may be best positioned to lead the process.

A strategic investigation is not just about who can do the work. It is about who can do it credibly.

What is the appropriate process?

Investigation processes and outcomes are being challenged more often. Organizations should assume that both will be scrutinized and should make sure the investigation is thorough, impartial, and fair.

In practice, organizations should:

• define the investigation mandate clearly;
• identify the allegations and issues being examined;
• document the steps taken during the investigation and the reasons for them;
• follow the investigation process consistently; and
• ensure decision-makers can explain how findings and next steps were reached.

The goal is not perfection. It is to show that the organization acted in good faith, followed a reasonable process, and made principled decisions.

Who does the investigation impact?

An investigation's impact may extend beyond the workplace itself. Depending on the circumstances, organizations may need to consider regulators, customers, clients, public relations concerns, and internal governance issues. They should also consider whether other parties need to be involved, informed of the outcome, or subject to enhanced confidentiality measures to protect sensitive information.

Can AI play a role?

AI can support investigations by helping teams analyze large volumes of data, identify patterns, and organize information more efficiently. Used carefully, it can improve both speed and insight.

But AI should remain a support tool. It should not replace human judgment, credibility assessments, or decision-making. Organizations that use AI in an investigation should be ready to explain how it was used, why it was used, and how they ensured it did not affect the fairness or outcome of the process.

Final Thoughts

Organizations that invest in investigation readiness are in a stronger position when issues arise unexpectedly. Strategic planning, a clearer process, and a disciplined and principled approach to independence can all lead to better outcomes.

We explored these themes in greater detail during recent webinars with Mondaq / Legal 500 and the Ontario Bar Association (OBA), sharing practical guidance on how organizations can strengthen their readiness before a significant issue emerges.

For more information or to discuss your organization's approach to investigation readiness, please contact any of the authors below.