Not every workplace investigation needs an external workplace investigator.
That is worth saying upfront because outsourcing should not be the automatic response every time an employee raises a complaint.
There are many situations where a capable internal People and Culture professional or manager can conduct a fair and effective investigation. There are also matters where keeping the investigation internal creates unnecessary problems.
The decision usually comes down to independence, capability, complexity and confidence in the process.
What does external actually give you?
The biggest difference is distance from the organisation and the people involved.
An external workplace investigator is not part of the reporting lines, office history or internal relationships surrounding the complaint. They are engaged for a specific purpose: to establish the facts.
That can make it easier to ask difficult questions, test evidence involving senior people and make findings that are not influenced by what happens inside the organisation after the report is delivered.
External does not automatically mean better. It simply removes some of the pressures that can exist internally.
Use an external investigator when there is a conflict
A conflict does not have to mean somebody is biased.
Sometimes the proposed internal investigator has previously advised on the issue, supported one of the parties, participated in a meeting now being examined, or reports into a person connected with the complaint.
Even if they believe they can remain impartial, it is worth asking how the arrangement will look to the people involved and whether it creates an avoidable argument about the integrity of the process.
If independence is likely to become a distraction, outsourcing the workplace investigation can be the cleaner option.
Consider external investigation when senior leaders are involved
Complaints about executives, directors and senior managers create particular challenges.
An internal investigator may be technically capable of doing the work but still sit below the respondent in the organisational structure. They may also need to keep working with that person long after the investigation is finished.
That can create practical pressure even where everybody is acting professionally.
An independent workplace investigator does not have that ongoing relationship. Their role ends with the investigation and the findings.
Complex evidence is another reason
Some investigations are straightforward. There may be one allegation, two people and a small amount of documentary evidence.
Others involve multiple allegations, long timelines, several witnesses and hundreds of pages of documents. There may be contradictions that need to be tested or evidence that only makes sense when it is placed in chronology.
At that point, the issue is not only independence. It is whether the organisation has somebody internally with the time and investigation experience to do the work properly.
Sensitive complaints need careful handling
Bullying, sexual harassment, discrimination, fraud, victimisation and other serious complaints can be difficult for everyone involved.
Good investigation practice matters in any workplace complaint, but sensitive allegations often require particularly careful interviewing, clear boundaries and an understanding of how people may respond when discussing distressing events.
That is one reason organisations sometimes choose an external investigator even where there is no obvious internal conflict.
When should you keep it internal?
An internal investigation may be the right choice where the allegations are contained, the investigator is experienced, there is no meaningful conflict and the people involved are likely to accept the process as fair.
It can also make sense where the organisation needs a quick factual inquiry into a relatively straightforward issue and there is no reason to introduce an external person.
The point is not to outsource for the sake of appearing independent. It is to choose the process that gives you the best chance of obtaining reliable findings.
There is also a middle option
Sometimes you do not need to outsource the entire investigation.
Your internal team may be able to conduct the interviews and gather the evidence but want help with the allegations, investigation plan, procedural fairness, evidence analysis or report structure.
That is where investigation advisory or oversight can be useful. It keeps the investigation internal while giving the investigator access to independent experience when the difficult parts arise.
How I can help
If you are deciding whether to use an external workplace investigator, I can look at the circumstances with you before you commit to a process.
Where independence is needed, I conduct workplace investigations from allegation drafting through to evidence analysis and findings. Where the matter can reasonably stay internal, I can provide advisory support instead.
The aim is not to make the process bigger. It is to make sure the process fits the problem you actually have.